I believe in 48 FPS

[sfoster]

I see you dodged a few questions there.

Yeah.. while I enjoyed the experience I certainly wouldn't boycott a film for not using 48fps. that seems like a strange question when only one film that i know of has used this technology

I can't answer your other questions because I have no idea what kind of numbers we're talking about.

Would I pay an extra dollar, yes. Would I pay an extra 40, no.

 

[Sweetie]

seems like a strange question when only one film that i know of has used this technology

3 Movies to date (the Hobbit Trilogy), 1 certain parts of the VGHS web Series. 4 more movies planned for HFR.

I don't know the numbers either. I'm not sure anyone really has an accurate number either way.

The questions are whether it is worth the extra cost questions. Pure business. When customers ask for extra features in products (yes, films are slightly different to real world products, but a similar aspects apply) unless economies of scale (extra sales can help cause this) decrease the cost per unit, the question then becomes, "Are the customers willing to spend the extra, to not only cover the cost, but to increase profit?"

With the way that theaters are at the moment, if 48fps had more appeal, it may draw more people to seeing films instead of waiting for home video. Alternatively if it had enough value where customers were willing to pay more for a ticket (probably similar to the levels of 3d, whatever they are in your area) then it may happen.

 

[sfoster]

Well so far IMO no film has really taken advantage of the 48 FPS since the hobbit is not a true action film. yeah it's a trilogy but I was calling it a film

Have you heard that they used to slow down bruce lee footage because he was too fast to see what was going on? It makes me wonder what he would have looked like at 48fps

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I don't watch a movie to experience real life.

Some films are made essentially to be looked at, to be appreciated in roughly the same way as say a modernist painting. The general public though much prefer narrative films where they can "experience" (identify and/or feel involved in) the story rather than just something to look at and appreciate. To create this illusion, to draw the audience into the storytelling and make an audience feel involved therefore requires relating the film to real life experience. This doesn't mean of course that a movie has to be identical to real life, just that real life is a required point of reference.

It's like the ATMOS DOLBY sound. While I see the benefit of ATMOS DOLBY in sound, in most applications, I don't think that benefit outweighs the added costs and complexity. It'd probably work well in a film that has air/space battles.

I've heard this sentiment from a number of filmmakers, it's incorrect for a couple of reasons. 1. At the professional level there is relatively little added cost. Most of the main theatrical mix stages are now Dolby Atmos equipped and they charge the same rates regardless of whether you employ the Dolby Atmos system or mix your film in mono. There is a complexity/time cost but that is reducing as it becomes more of a de facto standard and competition increases from the mid-tier (boutique) mix stages which are starting to upgrade to Atmos. 2. Relating to what I said in the previous paragraph, the benefits of Atmos are not mainly for air/space battles or action films but for virtually all types/genres of theatrical films. For example, with Dolby Atmos we can in theory recreate the actual sound of falling rain, an impossibility with any prior theatrical audio format. In real life we never experience sound in a single horizontal plane and 5.1 (or even 7.1) is not capable of providing a true 360deg even within that single horizontal plane. Atmos solves many of the prior limitations and provides not only the option to get far closer to a real life experience but also many more creative filmmaking options. When I first heard Atmos I cannot say I was blown away, even though I was deliberately listening out for it more than an average member of the audience. However, that was because the film was essentially designed for and as a 7.1 mix and therefore the Atmos mix was nothing more than a slightly enhanced 7.1 film. I was blown away when I saw Gravity in Atmos though, a film designed as an Atmos film which specifically took advantage of the creative potential that Atmos offers.

In short, the costs of Atmos are reducing and the benefits (or at least the disadvantages of not using Atmos) are increasing. Therefore stating that the benefits of Atmos do not outweigh the cost is largely untrue and becoming more untrue as time passes. I can't see Atmos having a direct impact on amateur film making in the foreseeable future, most amateur filmmakers haven't yet caught up with the 40 year old theatrical audio format, let alone one that's only a couple of years old and 4 generations later! Although it will have an indirect impact, namely an increase in the gulf between amateur and professional/commercial films.

I'm not sure how the Dolby Atmos situation translates to the situation with HFR. Are will still in the phase of designing and making 24fps films and simply shooting them in 48fps or are some filmmakers actually designing their films specifically to take advantage HFR? Are there actually enough potential advantages and enough financial incentive for cinemas to upgrade and the public to really want it? At the moment it looks like Atmos will eventually become the de facto theatrical audio standard but I'm not so sure about 48fps. It seems to me like the jury is still out and the focus of attention on the visual side of filmmaking currently seems to be more on resolution than frame rate. But then I'm not so au fait with the politics, economics and creative potential of HFR as I am with the audio side of the industry.

G

 

[Will Vincent]

I don't care for vinyl crackles in my music either

Not all vinyl crackles. There is a lot of vinyl that'll blow away the best digital recording, even very old recordings.

Seems to me you don't actually care about something having better 'quality' just whatever the newest tech is, good or bad.

 

[Sage Pictures]

48 is a great speed, for virtual reality films (a required minimum)

 

[Sweetie]

1. At the professional level there is relatively little added cost.
I'm not sure how the Dolby Atmos situation translates to the situation with HFR.

If there are no additional costs, then there's no correlation. If there are, as you've implied, we come full circle to the cost to benefit argument. By what you're saying, the cost increase with Atmos isn't that much so the cost to benefit ratio may be more palatable. What would be the difference in cost between a 7.1 Dolby mix and a Dolby Atmos mix?

With 48fps, as by my understanding, it has the potential to increase sfx budgets considerably, not to mention increases in rendering times (editing, grading etc), storage, bandwidth, potentially even computer and network infrastructure. Some (not all) of those issues are also a consideration when you increase resolution, though the public seems to understand the benefit of higher resolution more than increased frame rate.

I can't see Atmos having a direct impact on amateur film making

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the amateur film making. 48fps projecting isn't much of a consideration for the amateurs either, though I'd hazard a guess there are more devices out there capable of playing 48fps than ATMOS. This could change in the near future.

That being said, I think Dolby Atmos has more *potential* to increase audiences experience than 48fps. This is doubly so as it seems Dolby are promoting Atmos a bit. I don't really see anyone promoting 48fps as a benefit.

Since Dolby have announced that Atmos would soon be available to home theaters, that may dull the cinemas advantage a bit, though the expense for home systems may keep it in the hands of the few, so this may be a moot point.

At the moment it looks like Atmos will eventually become the de facto theatrical audio standard but I'm not so sure about 48fps.

I did a little looksie around. I think you're right that Atmos will become the de facto theatrical standard so I guess Hollywood have already figured Atmos is worth the added expense, at least in its mega budgeted films. I'm interested to know how many cinemas have Dolby Atmos compared to those that don't. According to Wikipedia, about 300 cinemas had it in 2013. I couldn't find anything for 2014.

I'd also like to know if Atmos is backwards compatible with Dolby systems that don't have Atmos or do you need a separate mix?

I don't think 48fps will become the standard.

Wasn't there an issue with some digital cinemas that were installed early that weren't working with high frame rate films. Was that fixed?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Not all vinyl crackles. There is a lot of vinyl that'll blow away the best digital recording, even very old recordings.

No, that's one of the many "audiophile" myths. The humble CD out performs vinyl in every respect. However, what's actually put on CD or vinyl is another matter entirely! Budgets in the past were many times higher than they are today and that afforded far more time and skill in the recording, producing and mastering than is the case today. So even though CD is demonstrably superior in every way to vinyl, the actual quality of the content that's put on CD is often inferior. If audiophiles spent as much time, effort and money on seeking out the best quality productions rather than the most overpriced (and generally inferior) technology, it might actually be economically worthwhile for some labels to start producing high quality music recordings again!

By what you're saying, the cost increase with Atmos isn't that much so the cost to benefit ratio may be more palatable. What would be the difference in cost between a 7.1 Dolby mix and a Dolby Atmos mix?

That's impossible to answer because it depends on how one employs the additional creative possibilities which Dolby Atmos provides. And by that I don't just mean additional time creating and mixing the audio itself but also any additional time and cost put into the design and shooting of the visuals to take storytelling advantage of Atmos. Taking none of this into account, there would be a fairly negligible difference in cost between a 7.1 mix and an Atmos mix, probably no more than a few percentage points of the audio post budget. However, as I explain below, it's not currently an "either/or" decision.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the amateur film making.

Because it will start to impact amateur film making, although only indirectly for the vast majority in the near future. Features and shorts mixed in Dolby Atmos have already appeared on the festival circuit and the number will undoubtedly increase but of course we're talking about only the very highest tier festivals currently.

Since Dolby have announced that Atmos would soon be available to home theaters, that may dull the cinemas advantage a bit ...

I don't see that being the case in practise. Home Dolby Atmos appears to be largely a marketing gimmick at this stage as it won't improve the listening experience for hardly anyone but the most extreme (and wealthy) home cinema owners. Eventually it will reduce filmmaking costs because separate home cinema mixes will not be required, as they are today, as a Dolby Atmos mix will be automatically down-mixed to 7.1, 5.1 or stereo mix depending on the system the individual consumer owns. But that's quite a way away as the consumer would still need a new generation Atmos compatible AV Receiver/decoder chip to recognise and decode/down-mix the Dolby Atmos datastream.

I'm interested to know how many cinemas have Dolby Atmos compared to those that don't. According to Wikipedia, about 300 cinemas had it in 2013. I couldn't find anything for 2014.

I don't know for sure but I believe it's currently somewhere between 1,000 - 1,500, roughly 1% of screens worldwide.

I'd also like to know if Atmos is backwards compatible with Dolby systems that don't have Atmos or do you need a separate mix?

In theory "yes", in practice "no". If a cinema has the new Dolby CP850 Cinema Sound Processor then "yes", it will read the Dolby Atmos data and output a 7.1 or 5.1 mix if the cinema is not equipped with Dolby Atmos. However, the vast majority of cinemas built more than a year or two ago will be still be using a CP650 which will not recognise a Dolby Atmos stream. Therefore, current wide commercial releases with an Atmos mix will also require a separate 7.1 mix to be created which, depending on schedules and how creatively the Atmos features have been employed, can add fairly considerably to the cost. Although "fairly considerably" is a deliberately vague term due to the complexity of the variables which may be at play.

Wasn't there an issue with some digital cinemas that were installed early that weren't working with high frame rate films. Was that fixed?

I believe early generation D-Cinema projectors are incapable of 48fps. Later generation projectors were capable of 48fps but required a firmware upgrade. I can't remember where I picked this info up, it may be out of date or even completely wrong, so don't take my word for it!

G

 

[sfoster]

Not all vinyl crackles. There is a lot of vinyl that'll blow away the best digital recording, even very old recordings.

Seems to me you don't actually care about something having better 'quality' just whatever the newest tech is, good or bad.

I've actually never listened to a vinyl record
So I can't say what is better or worse there

 

[Sweetie]

However, the vast majority of cinemas built more than a year or two ago will be still be using a CP650 which will not recognise a Dolby Atmos stream.

Thanks for those answers. I'd then assume films that want an Atmos mix also require a standard Dolby mix? This would then essentially double the Dolby cost, Right?

Last, do you know if some/majority of cinemas are charging more for a ticket in Atmos, handling it the same way as 3d? ... or are they using it as their competitive advantage. Same price, better product.

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

Last, do you know if some/majority of cinemas are charging more for a ticket in Atmos, handling it the same way as 3d? ... or are they using it as their competitive advantage. Same price, better product.

Personal experience - I work in a Dolby Atmos theatre (there are no others in the country, and for a while we were the only atmos theatre in Australia and NZ - I think Aus has some now). We certainly advertise our movies as the only place to see 'x movie' in atmos. I get asked semi-frequently (avg once a week) if a film is in atmos, and people are disappointed if a certain film isn't available in atmos - and some will even go to a less convenient session time to go to our screen that has atmos.

Re higher ticket costs: people will also pay for our 'platinum' seats which are in the best location to "experience dolby atmos sound." In genearl we're the most expensive theatre in town, but we also have the best sound, screen, projector, seating, etc. So we don't directly charge more for Atmos, but it comes as part of our "superior" movie going experience. I have no idea how that translates into real world profits, though.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I've actually never listened to a vinyl record
So I can't say what is better or worse there

Just comparing a vinyl record to a CD won't tell you much anyway, even if it's purportedly the same recording. There's been an unfortunate trend for several years now: Some labels which sell vinyl, SACD and/or other so called HD recordings alongside CD versions routinely "doctor" the CD version during the mastering process to justify the additional cost of what they market as higher quality or higher definition. If they didn't "doctor" the CD version there would either be no audible difference or the CD version would actually sound better!

I'd then assume films that want an Atmos mix also require a standard Dolby mix? This would then essentially double the Dolby cost, Right?

Again, that depends. As a generalisation it would increase the cost but by nowhere near double, as a fair bit of the work, particularly during the pre-mix phase, can be re-used with relatively little or no change for whichever format is being mixed. However, in some cases the Atmos mix and 7.1 mix are created in parallel and even in different mix facilities by different personnel. As I mentioned, there can be quite a lot of variables at play, sometimes the most major cost of audio post has nothing to do with the audio post process itself and therefore paying for two separate mixing teams and a certain amount of duplication can be the cheaper option.

Last, do you know if some/majority of cinemas are charging more for a ticket in Atmos, handling it the same way as 3d? ... or are they using it as their competitive advantage. Same price, better product.

Depends on the cinema/cinema chain. In general they do charge more, either directly for an Atmos ticket or indirectly as part of some sort of premium package option. I can't say if this is always the case with all Atmos cinemas but it does seem to be the case in the vast majority. I think in time we'll see it become more of a purely competitive advantage than a direct revenue stream but that's no more than a guess to be honest.

G

 

[Sweetie]

Again, that depends.[snip]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for answering.

As for the charge more etc. I wasn't clear, but you both answered what I was hoping for.

 

[Jack Lynt]

With 48fps, as by my understanding, it has the potential to increase sfx budgets considerably, not to mention increases in rendering times (editing, grading etc), storage, bandwidth, potentially even computer and network infrastructure. Some (not all) of those issues are also a consideration when you increase resolution, though the public seems to understand the benefit of higher resolution more than increased frame rate.

Maybe it will be, then, if 48fps continues to be used, that only tent-pole productions will do so --films like The Hobbit trilogy or the Avatar sequels (not that the Avatar sequels will be --I have no idea. Just saying that sort of movie). But big films like those, perhaps big 3D films like those, which a studio can be confident will be profitable.

Maybe, too, I wonder, folks who don't care for 3D might be the among the same folks who will shun HFR? 'Cause maybe it's those of who do like well done 3D who will be more inclined to also appreciate HFR.

Anyway, I for one am ready for 3D, 4K(and +), and HFR spectaculars!

The local AMC multiplex is showing Interstellar in 4K, and I must say: it looked spectacular without 3D or HFR. But, maybe it would have been even more spectacular with the addition of either one or both of those...?

Last, do you know if some/majority of cinemas are charging more for a ticket in Atmos, handling it the same way as 3d? ... or are they using it as their competitive advantage. Same price, better product.

I know you didn't ask me. And I know I can't answer it like APE or others can. [I missed C&C's and APE's answer before posting. ] But the local theater that recently remodeled its flagship screen to, among other things, equip it with Atmos, hasn't, as far as I can tell or figure, explicitly added or said that it's charging more for Atmos. However, the "UltraScreen" -that's what they call it- I think has always cost a bit of a premium. With the most recent remodel, they actually reduced the number of seats and installed recliners. Well, here's how they advertise it. What I notice is that no where do they say that the Atmos provided will cost X dollars premium. And I never noticed them advertising such a premium surcharge explicitly as a cost of Atmos. However, an UltraScreen ticket does cost a premium. And I'm guessing that almost must be to help recoup the costs of installing Atmos. But that probably also goes for covering the cost of significantly fewer seats, more expensive chairs, etc. And of course they're clearly going for the "premium experience" sell, overall. I suppose DLX stands for "deluxe."

Not assuming that the example of what one company is doing is representative, of course.

There has been an interesting thread (or more) discussing the trend of theaters moving toward the "premium experience."